Jonathan Beatty
Professor Craig
World Politics 001H
Submission Date: 24 October 2011
Evolution from Guerilla Warfare to Terrorism and the Future of Terrorism in Afghanistan
Guerilla warfare is defined in Merriam Webster as, “Military Actions carried out by small forces in the rear of an enemy with the object of harassing the enemy, interrupting his lines of communication, and destroying his supplies” (Merriam-Webster, Guerrilla). Insurgents have been using the tactic increasingly in the War in Iraq and Afghanistan with deadly results. Gone are the days of trench and chemical warfare. Being ushered in is an old practice updated by the insurgents. The use of suicide bombers and IEDs has intensified the war and made it into a war where the enemy can attack and kill many without significant loss. This development indicates that tactics of guerilla warfare are present in terrorist organizations (Alami, MIDEAST). With current war tactics indicating a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the possibility of increased and aggravated terrorist guerilla warfare is a real possibility.
Terrorism is defined in Merriam Webster as, “The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” (Merriam-Webster, Terrorism). With their tactics becoming more removed, it is apparent that terrorist warfare is guerilla warfare improved and intensified (Boot, Guerrilla). A primary reason why terrorists have adopted this type of warfare is because their viewpoint is to live another day to fight another day. In 2009, the United States Intelligence Community determined that there were about 19,000 to 27,000 insurgents operating in Afghanistan. Overall, in 2009 it was estimated that the Taliban had about 33,000 to 35,000 fighters with more in reserve (Naylor, Afghanistan). With an uptick in fighting, the current numbers are sure to be higher. With troop levels hovering around 170,000, the insurgents are outmatched in terms of troops (Associated Press, Number). This fact has resulted in their adoption of the guerilla warfare model.
Guerilla warfare has been a common practice of small groups who use strategic attacks on a smaller scale to wear down the enemy. The idea was thought to have been developed by Chinese Military strategist, Sun Tzu, over 2,000 years ago. Tzu wrote a book called The Art of War which outlined how to defeat a better-equipped and larger enemy. A prominent guerilla warfare tactic was the National Liberation Front’s strategy to take the property of large landowners and distribute it among the poor (Guerilla, Spartacus). This gained the support of the public and weakened the enemy.
The main goal of guerilla warfare is to weaken and harass the enemy through concentrated attacks. The Taliban insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have upgraded this tactic to be effective in the new age of warfare. The primary purpose of the Taliban is to terrorize the United States forces as opposed to harassing and weakening forces (Efstathiou, Use of Guerilla). The strategic attacks have evolved from setting a truck of supplies on fire to suicide bombers and IEDs. No amount of technology can fully prevent the death of Americans from roadside bombs set up by insurgents. Deaths from these IEDs are a constant presence in the news. Just on Wednesday, October 19th, a National Guard officer from Newark died after an Intentional Explosive Device (IED) was detonated (Ma, Newark). While technology has improved and IEDs are able to be discovered and disarmed, these deaths still persist.
With President Obama’s recent announcement that total withdrawal of US Troops from Iraq will happen by the end of the year, it is possible this guerilla war could escalate (Bowman, Obama). With a centralizing of US troops occurring in Afghanistan, the United States troops find themselves in a situation. The Taliban could now focus their guerilla warfare in Afghanistan resulting in stronger attacks. It is possible that air strikes could increase, resulting in more Taliban deaths. With his re-election campaign already gaining steam, it is unlikely that President Obama will decide to make controversial decisions. Afghanistan is not a stranger to conflict. The increase in guerilla warfare could end up crippling the country as forces focus in Afghanistan.
More effective guerilla attacks and a refocusing of troops in Afghanistan is a cause for concern. Although guerilla warfare has been used throughout the centuries to harass and inhibit the enemy, the Taliban have taken it to another level. They are using guerilla warfare as their primary source of attack against American troops, and indirectly, civilians. The current terrorist has a different frame of mind than the guerilla warrior of the past. While guerilla warfare has always centered around weakening the enemy, the intention to kill by the insurgents is evident in the use of suicide bombers and IEDs. The Taliban insurgency has taken a common form of warfare, guerilla warfare, and increased its effectiveness and evolved its purpose. This has resulted in a surprisingly powerful force of few that has crippled American troops.
Works Cited
Alami, Mona. "MIDEAST: Unconventional Warfare on Rise." IPS. IPS-Inter Press Service, 26 Jan. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
Boot, Max. "Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism « Commentary Magazine." Commentary Magazine. Commentary Magazine, 25 July 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
Bowman, Michael. "Obama Administration Defends Troop Withdrawal from Iraq." Voice of America. VOANews, 23 Oct. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.
Efstathiou, Nicholas. "The Use of Guerrilla Warfare in Afghanistan." Www.nicholasefstathiou.com. Nicolas Efstathiou. Web. 21 Oct. 2011.
"Guerrilla Warfare." Spartacus Educational. Spartacus School Net. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
Ma, Myles. "Newark Man's Death in Afghanistan in Top State News." LivingstonPatch - News, Sports, Events, Businesses & Deals. Livington Patch, 23 Oct. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.
Merriam-Webster. "Guerilla Warfare - Definition and More from Merriam-Webster." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
Merriam-Webster. "Terrorism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
Naylor, Sean D. "Afghanistan Insurgency Has Grown 10-Fold." Marine Corps News. Marine Corps Times, 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
Press, Associated. "Number of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Exceeds Total in Iraq for the First Time." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines. The Washington Post, 25 May 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
What strategies could be adopted to combat the guerrilla warfare waged against terrorists? While it seems that guerrilla warfare is unwinnable by the larger state, that has not always been so. Sri Lanka has completely destroyed The Tamil Tigers, a terrorist group that effectively employed guerrilla tactics. Russia has had similar successes against the Chechens and so has the UK with the IRA. Why has America been so ineffective against al-Qaeda?
ReplyDeleteSagatom: I think one of the key factors that play into the United States's ineffectiveness against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda is the fact that it is not fighting a domestic war. The territory being disputed is foreign soil for the American soldiers. I think it was possible for Russia, the UK, and Sri Lanka to deal with their their own terrorist problems because they were fighting on their own territory. One can draw this back to the American Revolution, when guerrilla tactics were used against the British soldiers because the Americans knew the land better than them. Better still, on top of that, American action in Vietnam can be pointed out as another example of fighting abroad against guerrilla tactics that did not end well. I was going to ask if we should follow the examples that the states you mentioned used to quell their terrorist problems, but now I must ask: will following these prove effective or just exacerbate the war in Afghanistan? Asking soldiers to switch to counterinsurgency methods has not yet proved entirely effective, so do you think another change in tactics will help or hinder the US military's chance of success in dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda? (I guess this goes to anyone at this point.)
ReplyDeleteWill: You do make a good point: all the groups I mentioned are widely domestic terrorists. Why is it though we can not translate these methods to the international level? Also, counter-insurgency has yet to prove whether it will have long-term effects so I can't speak to that, but if it does not prove effective, America may have to adopt another approach.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting!! I was wondering if you had any solutions to this issue. Obviously, the Taliban has heightened their methods of warfare, is there a way that the US should respond, or is it to late since we are withdrawing very quickly. Why do you think that, if this type of warfare is becoming so prevalent, the U.S. military is unable to counter Taliban attacks? Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves a little better at this point n the war?
ReplyDeleteThank you Sagatom. I believe that the problem is the specialization that comes with every territory. No matter how much you train your soldiers to deal with every possible situation, training and being in the midst of a battlefield are completely different. When you throw an even greater twist into that by eliminating the lines of defense and by throwing off the system that great powers have become so accustomed to fighting within, this completely exacerbates that problem. But I digress. I think what stands as a massive obstacle is the difficulty of relating to the enemy. While your aforementioned groups were terrorist organizations, they were most likely more easy to deal with because of the government and soldiers' ability to relate and understand their mindsets since they were domestic. The US is an area where the enemy cannot be easily detected or dealt with easily without potentially harming civilians. We must also examine the motivations behind each conflicting side. With each passing day, week, month, and year, the American public seems to support war less and less. It's an incredible conundrum when trying to translate to the international level. You must not only deal with the opinion of your own people but the world theatre, and when so many eyes are on you, expecting you to perform well, what happens when you cannot? It hurts your people not physically in the forms of soldiers but takes a big stab at American pride and in the image of the US as the world's police force.
ReplyDeleteIs America then doomed to fail? What options are there?
ReplyDeleteIf you guys are interested in ways to deal with terrorism and guerilla warfare, I would suggest taking a look at "The Accidental Guerilla" by David Kilcullen. He has a lot of experiences in dealing with this sort of conflict, and the entire book is him analyzing guerilla warfare and outlining a succesful response. Kilcullen helped the military form the strategy that allowed them to overcome insurgents in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteOn another point, Will, do you think that guerilla warfare has effectively replaced total warfare as the dominant form of conflict? If so, what implications do you think this carries?
Sean, I would say that guerilla warfare such as that seen in Afghanistan has come to replace total warfare as the dominant form of conflict, the implication being that wars are much more difficult to win. When fighting a guerilla force, it’s not as if you can conquer a capital and thus win a war. The way you define “winning” has to adapt. The shift from total to guerilla war also means longer, more drawn-out wars.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the US completely withdrawing from Afghanistan is a good idea? There might be less support for the war, but there is a real possibility that the country will fall into chaos after the US troops have gone. Is there a good answer as to what the US should do? I certainly don’t claim to have one…